Of  >Hf 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

26  MAY  If  14 

THE 


INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


AN  EFFECTIVE  ALLY 


OF 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT 


BY 


LEWIS  JEROME  JOHNSON 

Professor  of  Civil  Engineering 
Harvard  University 


EIGHTH  EDITION — FIRST  THOUSAND. 


Based  upon  an  article  in  the  New  England  Magazine,  June,  1909,  and  the 
Chicago  Public , of  July  30,  1909,  and  published  in  this  form  by  the 

MASSACHUSETTS  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  LEAGUE 

Roscoe  Walsworth,  Secretary  6o  State  St.,  Boston 

OCTOBER,  1913. 


PRICE,  FIVE  CENTS,  POSTPAID.  SPECIAL  PRICE  IN  QUANTITIES 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/initiativerefere00john_1 


€ 


"32*\*A 

^ oLnok 

# © €'j  ^ * /\V 

' © * 

Tf 

, « the 

V cr* 

I 5 INITIATIVE  and  REFERENDUM 

£ 

AN  EFFECTIVE  ALLY 

Q 

U"  OF 

in 

REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT 


UR  fathers  founded  this  government  in  order 
to  secure  for  the  people — all  the  people — the 
blessings  of  life,  liberty  and  happiness.  They 
devised  institutions  and  machinery  to  that  end. 

To-day,  after  the  lapse  of  a century  and  a quarter, 
combinations  of  power  have  grown  up  under  these  insti- 
tutions in  the  face  of  which,  for  multitudes  of  our  popu- 
lation, life  is  precarious,  liberty  practically  despaired  of, 
and  happiness,  except  of  a kind  enjoyed  by  the  Roma? 
proletariat  or  the  plantation  slave,  unknown.  We  know 
that  no  one  would  be  more  impatient  of  such  con- 
ditions than  our  revolutionary  forefathers,  and  no  one 
more  resolute  in  seeking  a remedy.  Honor  to  their 
memory  requires  us  to  scrutinize  their  work,  and  to  modern- 
ize it  if  necessary,  just  as  they  modernized  their  inherited 
institutions. 

Ideals  of  the  Fathers  Not  At  Fault. 

Accordingly  we  turn  first  to  the  spirit  and  purposes 
underlying  our  institutions.  We  find  nothing  to  criticize, 
even  after  all  this  time.  We  can  suggest  no  improvements 
in  this  quarter.  Even  now  we  are  inspired  with  a new 

* 

-j 


4 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


enthusiasm  by  the  ideals  expressed  by  our  fathers  in  founding 
this  Republic,  the  ideals  so  impressively  reaffirmed  by 
Lincoln  at  Gettysburg. 

Scrutiny  of  their  Governmental  Machinery. 

We  turn  next  to  the  details  of  their  governmental 
machinery.  Little  is  left  of  their  industrial  methods  and 
institutions,  and  perhaps  their  political  devices  too  are  out 
of  date.  If  they  are,  possibly  it  is  not  too  late  to  supple- 
ment them  or  replace  them  with  better. 

The  legislative  machinery  underlies  all  else.  We  ob- 
serve that  our  law-making  is  entrusted  to  representative 
bodies.  The  make-up  of  these  bodies  is,  nominally  at  least, 
under  public  control,  but  the  output  (except  amendments 
to  state  constitutions)  is  not  even  nominally  under  public 
control,  except  as  such  control  may  be  exerted  through 
pressure  upon  individual  representatives.  When  we  consider 
the  extent  to  which  such  pressure  is  made  effective  to-day  by 
the  greedy  and  highly  organized  few,  rather  than  by  the 
merely  normally  interested  and  unorganized  many,  a legisla- 
tive system  which  may  have  been  safe  once  comes  to  look 
decidedly  defective. 

A Fundamental  Defect. 

Further  reflection  convinces  us  that  this  lack  of  ade- 
quate popular  control  of  results  is  not  only  a defect  but 
is  the  fundamental  defect  in  our  legislative  mechanism. 
Its  correction  is  therefore  essential,  and  is  logically  the 
first  step  in  the  modernization  of  our  political  machinery. 
This  done,  improved  legislation  is  assured  as  fast  as  the 
majority  can  agree  upon  it.  This  done,  all  unnecessary  and 
undesirable  obstacles  to  progress  will  have  been  minimized. 
Until  this  is  done,  we  have  little  reason  to  hope  for  per- 
manently better  conditions,  except  at  an  utterly  unrea- 
sonable cost  in  effort  and  delay.  The  importance  of  concen- 
trating attention  upon  this  issue  is  manifest. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


5 


What  Can  Be  Done. 

The  next  question  is,  How  shall  the  public  get  ade- 
quate control  of  results? 

The  answer  is,  We  must  assert  our  natural  right  to 
revise  the  work  of  our  representatives.  We  must  do  this 
revising  ourselves.  There  is  no  one  else  to  do  it.  To  do 
it  we  must  supplement  the  existing  legislative  machinery 
with  a workable,  orderly,  and  properly  guarded  contrivance 
to  enable  us  to  enact  laws,  to  veto  them,  to  amend  them 
or  to  repeal  them  by  direct  popular  vote  over  the  head  of 
legislatures  and  city  councils,  in  the  instances  when  these 
bodies  fail  to  meet  the  public  will.  In  other  words,  we  must 
considerably  extend  the  practice  of  direct  legislation  by  the 
people,  already  familiar  to  us  in  the  New  England  town- 
meeting, and  in  the  popular  ratification  of  amendments  to 
state  constitutions. 

Fortunately  the  way  to  do  this  has  been  devised  and 
tested  and  has  met  expectations  on  a city-wide  and  state- 
wide scale.  It  involves  two  devices  developed  in  the  last 
few  decades,  the  Initiative  and  the  Referendum,  now 
included  under  the  single  term  Direct  Legislation. 

Initiative  and  Referendum. 

The  Initiative  enables  the  people  to  enact  desirable 
measures  by  direct  popular  vote,  when  such  measures  have 
been  or  are  likely  to  be  ignored,  pigeonholed,  amended 
out  of  shape,  or  defeated  by  the  legislature.  Measures 
passed  in  this  way  may  be  entirely  new  laws,  or  they  may, 
of  course,  amend  or  repeal  existing  laws. 

The  Referendum  enables  the  people,  by  direct  popular 
vote,  to  veto  recent  enactments  of  their  representatives. 

The  Initiative  corrects  sins  of  omission. 

The  Referendum  corrects  sins  of  commission. 

The  Initiative  is  set  in  operation  by  volunteer  groups 
of  citizens, — civic,  labor,  or  mercantile  organizations, — 


6 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


who  draw  up  laws  which  they  think  good  for  themselves, 
or  the  public,  or  perhaps  both.  If  they  can  get  a certain 
moderate  percentage*  of  the  voters  of  the  city  or  State  to 
sign  the  requisite  petition  the  measure  goes  to  the  council 
or  legislature,  and  if  this  body  refuses  to  adopt  it  within 
a specified  time  without  amendment,  the  measure  must 
be  transmitted  unchanged  to  the  people  for  their  decision. 
If  the  legislative  body  thinks  it  can  produce  a better  en- 
actment to  the  same  effect,  it  may  draw  it  up  and  send  it 
to  the  people,  with  the  other,  as  a competing  measure!  The 
voters  then  choose  between  them,  or  reject  both.  In  some 
jurisdictions,  notably  Oregon,  initiative  measures  go  directly 
to  the  people  without  previous  submission  to  the  legislature. 
Other  modifications  in  details  may  be  expected  with  time. 

The  Referendum,  likewise  upon  petition,  brings  newly 
passed  legislation  to  the  popular  tribunal  for  veto  or  con- 
firmation,— and  confirmation  of  some  laws  may  be  as  im- 
portant as  the  veto  of  others. 

The  need  of  interference  with  the  work  of  the  repre- 
sentatives is  greatly  reduced  by  the  mere  existence  of  the 
system,  and  the  number  of  laws  actually  coming  to  popular 
vote  is  a small  fraction  of  the  whole. 

The  Recall  and  its  Relation  to  Direct  Legislation. 

Direct  Legislation  is  likely  to  result,  before  being  long 
in  operation,  in  the  establishment  of  the  Recall,  which  is 
the  properly  guarded  power  of  removal  of  unsatisfactory 
officeholders  before  the  expiration  of  their  terms.  Thus 
the  people  gain  the  power  of  removal,  the  logical  sup- 
plement to  their  already  existing  power  of  election. 

The  Recall,  though  obviously  a device  indispensable 
for  popular  control,  and  usually,  in  city  charters,  established 
simultaneously  with  Direct  Legislation,  will  not  be  dis- 

*The  number  of  signatures  required  in  these  petitions  ranges,  in 
different  states,  from  five  to  eight  per  cent  of  the  voters  for  initiative 
petitions  for  ordinary  laws;  from  eight  to  fifteen  per  cent  for  initia- 
tive petitions  for  constitutional  amendments;  and  from  five  to  ten  per 
cent  for  referendum  petitions.  The  usual  percentages  are  eight  for 
initiative,  and  five  for  referendum  petitions,  though  the  tendency  in 
the  more  populous  states  is  wisely  to  reduce  the  former  figure,  and  to 
turn  to  fixed  numbers  instead  of  percentages. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


7 


cussed  further  here.  It  should  be  looked  upon  as  one  of 
the  numerous  desirable  but  subordinate  measures,  like 
Preferential  Voting,  Direct  Nominations  and  the  Short 
Ballot,  which  may  safely  be  left  to  be  gained  by  subsequent 
enactment  in  the  larger  jurisdictions  like  our  states.  This 
is  strikingly  true  in  Massachusetts  where  the  Recall  has 
been  suggested,  if  not  actually  authorized,  in  the  Constitution 
since  its  adoption  in  1780,  as  will  be  seen  from  Art.  VIII  of 
that  Constitution  quoted  below,  and  could,  possibly,  unlike 
the  Initiative  and  Referendum,  be  made  operative  without 
constitutional  amendment. 

Furnishing  Information  to  Voters. 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum,  as  now  advocated, 
carry  with  them,  of  course,  adequate  and  systematic  means, 
independent  of  the  newspapers,  of  furnishing  each  voter 
the  full  text  of  the  measures  to  be  voted  on;  the  condensed 
form  in  which  they  will  be  printed  on  the  ballot;  state- 
ment of  the  reasons  for  and  against  each  measure;  and  the 
names  of  those  behind  each  proposition. 

In  Oregon,  the  Secretary  of  State  edits  this  informa- 
tion and  mails  it  in  pamphlet  form  to  each  voter  in  the 
State  fifty-five  days  before  election.  At  least  eight  weeks 
have  elapsed  by  that  time  since  the  circulation  and  filing 
of  the  petitions.  This  is  found  to  afford  ample  time  for 
deliberation  and  discussion,  and  the  pamphlet  provides  an 
adequate  basis  for  decisions.  Those  who  wish  to  insert 
arguments  in  this  pamphlet  pay  the  cost  of  paper  and 
printing — some  eighty  dollars  per  page — and  the  State  bears 
the  rest  of  the  cost  of  the  pamphlet  and  its  distribution. 
In  initiative  cases,  supporting  arguments  are  accepted  from 
none  but  duly  accredited  representatives  of  the  friends  of  the 
measure;  any  one  who  will  pay  the  cost,  however,  may 
insert  arguments  against  such  a measure.  In  referendum 
cases  arguments  upon  either  side  may  be  inserted  by  any 


8 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


one  willing  to  pay  the  cost.  In  the  election  of  November, 
1912,  when  thirty  seven  measures  were  acted  upon  by  the 
electorate,  the  State  Pamphlet  was  a document  of  two 
hundred  and  sixty-two  octavo  pages. 

Oregon  voters  protect  themselves  still  further  from 
false  or  misleading  campaign  literature  by  a provision  of 
their  admirable  Corrupt  Practices  Act — a comprehensive 
measure,  based  on  English  practice,  which  came  from  the 
people  by  the  Initiative — which  prescribes  a heavy  penalty 
for  circulating  political  literature,  unless  it  bears  the  names 
of  its  authors  and  publishers. 

In  Oklahoma,  there  is  a State  Pamphlet  for  informing 
voters  as  in  Oregon,  but  with  some  interesting  differences 
in  detail.  In  Oklahoma,  as  is  proposed  in  Massachusetts, 
initiative  measures  go  first  to  the  legislature.  Hence  all 
popular  voting  is  upon  measures  which  have  had  recent 
legislative  action.  A joint  committee  of  House  and  Senate 
is  therefore  naturally  called  upon  to  prepare  the  argu- 
ments supporting  the  legislature’s  position.  The  oppos- 
ing argument  is  drawn  up  by  a committee  representing 
the  petitioners. 

The  argument  for  each  side  of  each  measure  is  restricted 
by  the  Oklahoma  law  to  two  thousand  words,  one-fourth 
of  which  may  be  in  answer  to  opponents’  arguments.  The 
direct  argument  on  each  side  is  prepared  and  submitted 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  transmits  it  to  the  opposing 
side  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  the  rebuttal  just  mentioned 
and  thus  complete  the  argument.  These  arguments  on 
all  the  questions  are  then  assembled  in  the  State  Pamphlet 
and  distributed  to  all  the  voters  of  the  state  a suitable 
number  of  weeks  before  the  election.  The  cost  of  printing 
and  distribution  is  borne  by  the  public  treasury. 

The  Oklahoma  plan  has  some  striking  merits.  It 
requires  the  Legislature  to  state  the  reason  for  the  action 
which  it  has  taken.  Doubtless  this  reason  is  often  good 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


9 


and  sufficient,  but  perhaps  more  certainly  so  when  the 
lawmakers  know  in  advance  that  they  may  have  to  de- 
fend their  position.  The  legislature’s  views  on  the  measure 
should  be  of  great  value  to  the  voters. 

More  important  still,  it  ensures  the  presentation  of  a 
negative  argument.  Experience  in  Oregon  has  already 
shown  that  a negative  argument  is  not  always  forthcoming 
when  left  to  be  supplied  by  volunteers.  A campaign  of 
silence  is  sometimes  wisely  preferred  by  interests  at  whom 
an  initiative  measure  is  aimed,  to  the  revelation  of  weakness 
which  would  result  from  a formal  attempt  at  defence. 
They  well  know  that  voters  are  likely,  from  sheer  force  of 
habit,  thoughtlessly  to  concede  more  in  the  defence  of  a 
long  established  wrong  than  its  beneficiaries  would  dare 
claim  for  it.  The  Oklahoma  plan  of  informing  voters  requires 
each  side  to  show  its  hand.  Bluffing  is  eliminated.  Privilege 
has  to  come  out  in  the  open  and  state  such  case  as  it  has. 
Silent  contempt  is  not  permitted  to  do  duty  as  argument. 

Both  the  Oregon  and  the  Oklahoma  systems  of  dis- 
seminating information  do  much  to  forestall  the  mislead- 
ing of  voters  through  the  newspapers.  Some  expense  is 
involved,  but  this  point  is  not  apt  to  be  pressed  except 
by  those  opposed  to  the  whole  system  on  other  grounds. 
The  body  of  voters  well  understand  that  one  bad  law  or 
one  carelessly  granted  franchise  may  cost  the  public  in 
actual  dollars  and  cents  many  times  the  cost  of  the  State 
Pamphlet. 

Hopeful  Outlook  for  Representative  Government. 

Supplemented  by  the  Initiative  and  Referendum,  to 
serve  as  a permanent  background  and  for  application 
when  called  for,  the  representative  system  will  gradually 
but  surely  enter  upon  a period  of  honor  and  usefulness 
hitherto  never  surpassed  and  probably  never  equaled. 
Relieved  of  the  unnatural  excess  of  power  under  which  they 


10 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


now  stagger  and  sometimes  fall,  legislative  bodies  will 
cease  to  be  attractive  objects  for  bribery  and  secret  influence. 
Log-rolling  will  greatly  diminish.  The  power  of  bosses 
and  rings  will  be  undermined.  Seats  in  the  legislatures 
will  then  begin  to  be  unattractive  to  grafters.  At  the  same 
time  they  will  become  more  attractive  to  high-minded, 
public-spirited  citizens.  There  will  be  a fairer  chance 
that  a man  clean  when  elected  will  stay  clean.  It  will 
make  it  safe  to  reduce  the  size  of  legislatures  and  to  dimin- 
ish greatly  the  number  of  elective  officers.  The  party 
machines  and  bosses  once  permanently  out  of  control, 
we  may  reach  the  point  of  competing  successfully  with 
the  corporations  in  attracting  the  best  young  talent  to 
the  public  service. 

With  Direct  Legislation  in  vogue,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
retire  a faithful  legislator  to  express  disapproval  of  some 
of  his  measures.  The  electorate,  while  returning  the  man 
to  office,  can  overrule  the  measures  with  no  more  reflection 
on  his  honor  or  usefulness  than  is  involved  in  the  overruling 
of  a lower  court  by  a higher.  Honest  and  able  representatives 
are  hence  likely  to  be  repeatedly  re-elected.  Long  tenure  is 
as  valuable  to  public  as  to  private  business.  Where  the 
people  have  been  in  control  long  enough  for  this  result  to 
show  as  in  Switzerland  and  in  the  New  England  towns, 
they  are  seen  to  act  upon  this  principle.  In  Switzerland 
it  is  rare  that  a new  member  appears  in  a legislative  body 
except  to  fill  a vacancy  due  to  death  or  voluntary  retirement. 
In  New  England  towns  it  is  common  for  faithful  officials 
to  be  retained  in  office  practically  for  life,  their  annual 
re-eleetions  being  frequently  uncontested. 

With  a seat  in  the  legislature  thus  robbed  of  its  charms 
for  all  but  the  public-spirited,  and  with  re-election  practically 
assured  to  men  of  proved  merit,  real  legislative  experts  in 
good  number  may  gradually  be  developed. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  11 


Representative  Government  Yet  to  Be  Given  a Fair  Trial. 

In  view  of  such  untested  possibilities,  it  is  beside  the 
mark  to  wonder  whether  representative  government  is  a 
failure.  We  begin  to  realize  that  it  has  not  yet  been  fairly 
tried,  at  least  not  in  recent  years.  We  realize  that  our 
legislators  have  been  working  under  almost  intolerable 
conditions.  They  have  been  continually  exposed  to  temp- 
tations that  no  ordinary  man  ought  to  be  asked  to  face, 
and  it  is  a tribute  to  human  nature  that  so  many  of  our 
legislators  have  stayed  straight.  Under  Direct  Legisla- 
tion legislators  will  have  all  the  power  that  is  ever  accorded 
to  representatives  and  agents  in  business,  which  is  all  that 
is  wholesome  or  attractive  to  worthy  citizens  of  a democratic 
republic.  That  final  enacting  power  is  far  from  essential 
to  the  dignity  of  a legislative  body  is  shown  by  the  uni- 
versal respect  in  which  our  American  constitutional  con- 
ventions have  always  been  held. 

Improved  Status  of  the  Voter. 

While  enough  power  is  thus  left  with  the  represen- 
tatives, a salutary  increase  of  responsibility  is  thrown 
upon  the  voter.  It  brings  him,  to  some  purpose,  into 
closer  touch  with  great  affairs.  It  enables  him  to  vote 
for  measures  apart  from  men,  and  for  men  apart  from 
measures.  He  can  begin  to  assume  the  statute  of  a man, 
to  become  a sovereign  in  fact  as  well  as  in  fancy.  It  will  en- 
able him  to  settle  something  at  an  election  besides  the  party 
label  of  officeholders,  which  in  turn  settles  little  except 
which  faction  shall  dispense  the  spoils  of  office.  For  we 
know  only  too  well  that  platforms  are  “merely  to  get  in 
on,  not  to  ride  on.”  Even  if  they  were  expected  to  be 
observed,  platforms  are  composites  which  rarely  represent, 
except  in  the  roughest  way,  the  views  of  any  one  thoughtful 
voter. 


12 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Simplicity  of  the  Voter’s  Task. 

The  new  task  proposed  for  the  voter,  though  inspiring, 
is  relatively  simple.  It  differs  widely  from  legislation  in 
the  ordinary  sense. 

The  originating  and  drafting  of  bills  can  manifestly 
never  fall  as  a burden  on  the  mass  of  the  voters.  For 
this  service  the  community  can  always  command  ability 
as  wise,  disinterested  and  as  practised  in  legislation  as  any 
who  now  do  such  work.  The  average  voter’s  part  in  the 
work  is  deliberation,  discussion  and  the  registry  of  his 
decision.  This  is  no  neAv  task  for  him;  the  only  novelty 
is  in  having  a chance  to  do  it  intelligently,  and  to  see  his 
decision  go  into  effect. 

The  voter,  going  into  the  booth,  has  known  for  months 
just  what  is  coming  up  and  in  just  what  form  it  is  coming 
up.  There  is  no  thought  of  possible  amendment.  With 
regard  to  each  measure  he  has  simply  to  approve  or  reject. 
He  has  had  plenty  of  time  to  make  up  his  mind.  If  a measure 
is  objectionable  in  purpose  or  form,  or  is  lacking  in  clearness, 
he  will  of  course  reject  it  and  await — or  cause — its  reappear- 
ance in  a more  acceptable  form  at  a subsequent  election. 

The  voter  is  thus  more  like  a juror  than  like  a legislator. 
His  capacity  for  intelligent,  discriminating  work  at  a single 
election  is  therefore  large — much  larger,  as  experience 
shows,  than  at  first  thought  might  seem  possible. 

In  1909,  for  example,  the  voters  of  Portland,  Oregon, 
in  a city  election,  besides  voting  for  mayor  and  other  officers, 
voted  discriminatingly  and  with  sustained  interest  on 
thirty-five  measures,  thirteen  of  which  they  passed.  The 
average  vote  on  each  of  the  thirty-five  measures  was 
slightly  over  eighty-one  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  for 
mayor,  with  a range  from  seventy-five  per  cent  to  ninety 
per  cent.  The  majorities,  both  yes  and  no,  Were  sometimes 
large,  sometimes  small.  There  is  every  evidence  that  the 
voting  m each  case  reflected  the  calm  judgment  of  the  voters. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


13 


In  Denver,  in  the  election  o.f  May,  1910,  the  voters, 
besides  electing  city  officers,  dealt  discriminatingly  with 
a list  of  twenty-one  measures,  some  of  them  trickily  worded. 
Moreover,  in  this  case,  they  had  to  face  an  enormous  cor- 
ruption fund  and  all  that  the  combined  party  machines, 
and  selfish  interests  could  do  to  mislead.  The  result  was  a 
triumph  for  the  people  at  every  significant  point. 

The  people’s  capacity  for  Direct  Legislation  is  not  likely 
to  be  subjected  to  severer  tests  than  it  has  already  stood  with 
signal  success. 

New  Talent  Freely  Enlisted  for  Public  Service. 

Through  Direct  Legislation,  the  State  will  offer  an 
attractive  field  of  usefulness  for  such  of  her  citizens  as  do  not 
care  to  give  up  their  whole  time  to  public  life.  Public- 
spirited  citizens,  without  dislocation  of  business  or  profession, 
may  and  will  devote  a much  larger  share  of  their  time  than 
now  to  the  consideration  of  public  questions.  If  they 
conceive  of  a desirable  step  in  legislation,  they  will  not  have 
to  contrive  to  get  into  office  and  to  stay  there  long  enough 
to  accomplish  their  ends.  They  have  a dignified  and  honor- 
able method  of  presenting  to  the  final  authority,  for  adoption 
or  rejection,  the  best  fruits  of  their  labors,  free  from  the 
risk  of  mutilation  or  distortion  by  ill-informed,  overworked, 
or  corrupt  legislatures.  This  - alone  would  be  a powerful 
means  of  bringing  spontaneously  to  the  public  service, 
and  at  no  expense,  a large  amount  of  talent  of  the  best 
possible  sort  for  which  there  is  now  little  encouragement 
in  public  life.  This  is  the  talent  on  which  we  might  well 
depend  for  the  most  serious  law  making,  but  which  we 
have  had,  thus  far,  too  little  chance  to  utilize.  The  legisla- 
ture will  thus  be  facing  a reasonable  and  wholesome  competi- 
tion and  the  pubic  cannot  fail  to  profit  thereby. 


14 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Direct  Legislation  a Safeguard  against  Mob  Rule. 

Sometimes  officeholders  or  party  machine  men  profess 
a great  fear  that  Direct  Legislation  will  result  in  “mob 
rule.”  This  must  be  taken  to  mean  that  they  fear,  proba- 
bly with  reason,  that  the  people,  after  weeks  of  deliberation 
, and  with  adequate  information,  would  not  support  their 
pet  schemes.  Prospective  abundance  of  popular  majorities 
in  their  favor  would  neither  excite  their  protests  nor  be 
called  by  them  “mob  rule.”  No  ; mob-action  finds  a more 
promising  field  in  nominating  conventions,  and  even  town 
meetings  than  in  the  long  process  of  gathering  signatures, 
weeks  of  discussion  and  deliberation,  and  the  quiet  vote  on 
an  Australian  ballot  in  isolated,  individual  booths. 

Direct  Legislation  is  not  only  a safeguard  against  mob 
rule,  but  against  the  only  thing  likely  with  us  to  lead  to 
violent  revolution,  namely,  machine  rule  for  the  benefit  of  the 
privileged  few.  Majority  rule  precludes  both  mob  rule 
and  machine  rule,  for  majority  rule  -brings  into  play  the 
great  patient  mass  of  honest,  hardworking  citizens,  ordi- 
narily silent  and  little  felt.  They  abhor  alike  the  violent 
methods  of  the  mob  and  the  intriguing  of  “politics.”  No 
less  do  they  shrink  from  making  themselves  individually 
conspicuous  in  hopelessly  protesting  against  powerful 
wrongs  which  they  can,  though  they  ought  not  to,  endure. 
They  are  likely  to  suffer  in  silence  until  driven  to  extremes, 
rather  than  seek  relief  through  the  distasteful  and  inadequate 
means  now  at  their  disposal. 

To  provide  the  people  with  orderly  and  regular  means 
of  expressing  themselves  on  equal  terms  with  all  their 
neighbors,  with  the  certainty  that  their  will  thus  expressed 
will  take  effect,  is  the  logical  way  to  ensure  the  healthy  and 
natural  progress  which  in  the  long  run  is  the  only  pre~ 
ventive  of  violent  upheaval. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


15 


Deeper  Value  of  Direct  Legislation. 

An  additional  advantage  in  Direct  Legislation  is  the 
education  which  it  affords  the  average  voter.  One  cannot 
help  believing  that  the  consequent  toning  up  of  the  public 
standard  of  thought  and  morals  would  be  in  the  long  run 
the  most  important  feature  of  the  system.  Direct  Legis- 
lation tends  thus  automatically  to  produce  a highly  trained 
and  self-respecting  electorate,  and  to  lay  the  deepest  and 
most  promising  foundation  for  permanent  good  government. 

Direct  Legislation  is  the  only  orderly  means  known 
for  accurately  and  unmistakably  expressing  the  public  will  as 
to  legislation,  and  for  making  it  prevail.  It  gives  at  last 
a fair  approach  to  a proper  and  worthy  means  of  register- 
ing public  sentiment,  well  defined  by  some  one  as  “the 
deliberate  and  reasoned  judgment”  of  the  people.  It  is 
as  effective  a balance  wheel  against  mere  popular  clamor 
as  it  is  a safeguard  against  the  silent  scheming  of  the  crafty 
few.  Direct  Legislation  thus  opens  for  the  first  time  a fair 
prospect  for  the  early  realization  of  the  cherished  American 
ideal — a government  by  as  well  as  of  and  for  the  people. 

Development  of  Direct  Legislation. 

The  Direct  Legislation  idea  is  no  novelty  among  free 
peoples.  It  may  be  seen  in  the  institutions  of  the  Plymouth 
Colony.  It  appears  in  our  time-honored  New  England 
town  meeting  and  the  even  more  ancient  Swiss  Landesge- 
meinde,  and  German  folk-moot,  all  of  them  perfect  exem- 
plifications of  the  Direct  Legislation  principle  on  a small 
scale.  It  appears  in  our  popular  ratification  of  state  consti- 
tutions and  their  amendments,  usually  insisted  upon  from 
the  first,  in  spite  of  the  pitifully  inadequate  facilities  of  our 
early  days. 

More  recently,  we  note  the  steady  extension  of  Direct 
Legislation  through  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  from 
canton  to  canton  in  Switzerland,  its  application  to  Swiss 


16  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


federal  legislation — the  Referendum  in  1874  and  the  Initia- 
tive for  constitutional  amendments  in  1891 — and  its  adoption 
in  the  last  decade  by  city  after  city  and  State  after  State 
in  this  country.  Direct  Legislation  (usually  accompanied 
from  the  start  by  the  Recall)  is  an  essential  feature  of  nearly 
all  modern  city  charters,  and  those  without  it  will  doubtless 
have  to  add  it  sooner  or  later  to  get  satisfactory  results. 
Notable  among  the  Direct  Legislation  cities  stand  Los  An- 
geles, Denver  and  Cleveland  besides  scores  of  the  so-called 
commission-governed  cities  such  as  Des  Moines,  Spokane 
and  Grand  Junction,  Col.  The  Direct  Legislation  states 
are  South  Dakota,  Oregon,  Montana,  Oklahoma,  Maine, 
Missouri,  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Arizona,  California,  Ohio, 
Nebraska,  Nevada,  Washington  and  Michigan. 

Now,  in  1913,  constitutional  amendments  for  establish- 
ing the  initiative  and  referendum  have  passed  the  legis- 
lature and  are  before  the  voters  for  adoption  in  North 
Dakota,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota  and  Texas. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  are  in  force  to-day  in 
every  American  state,  but  two,  in  which  they  have  come  to 
popular  vote.  These  two  are  Wyoming  and  Mississippi.  In 
1912  these  two  states  fortunately  defeated  measures  over- 
burdened with  restrictions,  although,  by  votes  of  six  to  one 
and  nearly  two  to  one  respectively,  their  voters  at  the  same 
time  went  on  record  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum. 


The  vote  by  which  each  state  adopted 
these  measures,  with  the  date,  is  as 
follows: 


State 

Year 

Yes 

No 

South  Dakota 

1898 

23,816 

16,483 

Utah 

1900 

19,219 

7,786 

Oregon 

1902 

62,024 

5,668 

Nevada  (Referen- 

dum only) 

1905 

4,393 

792 

Montana 

1906 

36,374 

6,616 

Oklahoma* 

1907  180,333 

73,059 

Maine 

1908 

53,785 

24,543 

Missouri 

1908  177,615  147,290 

Arkansas 

1910 

91,363 

39,680 

Colorado 

1910 

89,141 

28,698 

Arizona* 

1911 

12,187 

3,822 

California 

1911  168,744 

52,093 

New  Mexico*  (Ref. 

only) 

1911 

31,724 

13,399 

Ohio 

1912  312,592  231,312 

Idaho  (Init.) 

1912 

38,918 

15,195 

“ (Ref.) 

1912 

43,658 

13,490 

Nebraska 

1912  189,200 

15,315 

Nevada  (Initiative) 

1912 

9,956 

1,027 

State  Year  Yes  No 

Washington  1912  110,110  43,905 

Michigan  (Const. 

Init.)  1913  204,796  162,392 
“ (Legis.  I.  & R.)  1913  219,057  152,388 

*Vote  on  state  constitution. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  17 


It  should  be  stated  that  in  some  of  these  earlier  states 
the  measures  are  largely  inoperative  through  excessive 
restrictions,  as  in  South  Dakota  and  Montana,  or  through 
failure  of  the  legislature  to  provide  the  requisite  detailed 
legislation  carelessly  left  to  it  in  the  amendment,  as  in  Utah 
and  Idaho.  For  this  reason  these  two  states  were  not 
named  in  the  first  list  on  the  opposite  page. 

The  people  of  Illinois  passed  advisory  votes  in  favor 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  by  428,469  to  87,654  in 
1902,  and  reaffirmed  this  verdict  by  447,908  to  128,398  in 
1910.  In  spite  of  this,  their  legislature  has  thus  far  failed 
to  respond  with  the  desired  legislation. 

How  It  Works  in  Switzerland. 

For  examples  of  the  effect  to  Direct  Legislation,  we 
naturally  turn  first  to  Switzerland,  where  it  has  been  in 
operation  on  what  may  be  called  a large  scale  for  fifty  to 
eighty  years.  With  the  aid  of  Direct  Legislation  as  a result 
of  its  moral  influence  as  well  as  by  its  direct  application, 
Switzerland  has,  wherever  she  has  applied  it , rid  herself 
of  the  misrule  and  exploitation  which  were  previously 
rampant,  as  they  had  been  for  centuries,  in  all  but  the 
minute  but  ultra-democratic  cantons.*  Thanks  to  sound 
democratic  idealism  supported  by  suitable  machinery  for 
its  expression  she  has  now  come  to  be  an  admirably  gov- 
erned country. 

Mr.  James  Bryce,  recently  British  ambassador  to  the 
United  States,  declared  to  a Cambridge  audience  in  1904 
that  Switzerland  is  the  most  successful  democracy  that 
the  world  has  ever  seen. 

*It  is  to  these  little  cantons,  including  less  than  ten  per  cent  of 
the  area,  and  less  than  seven  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  present 
whole  country,  that  Switzerland  owes  her  otherwise  quite  undeserved 
reputation  for  century-old  free  political  institutions. 


18 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Further  expert  testimony  to  what  is  generally  known 
and  admitted  by  the  well-informed  and  disinterested  is  hardly 
needed,  but  the  New  International  Encyclopedia  in  its 
article  on  Switzerland,  expresses  it  so  naively  that  it  may 
be  worth  citing.  After  a lengthy  account  of  the  civil  wars 
and  political  turmoil  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  it  disposes  of  the  rest  of  the  century  with  the  single 
remark  that  “the  history  of  Switzerland  for  the  past  quarter 
of  a century  has  been  very  uneventful,  though  marked 
by  a steady  material,  intellectual  and  political  growth.” 

All  this  does  not  mean  that  Switzerland  is  an  unalloyed 
paradise.  Some  of  the  great  human  problems  seem  as 
far  from  solution  in  Switzerland  as  elsewhere.  It  does 
mean  that  the  government  promptly  reflects  public  senti- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  is  free  from  violent  fluctua- 
tions of  policy.  It  means  that  the  government  is  admin- 
istered efficiently,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  public  good. 
It  means  that  Switzerland,  with  a form  of  government 
modelled  largely  upon  our  own,  by  a modification  which 
might  have  been  suggested  by  our  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, has  secured  good  government  in  a democratic 
republic. 

Old-Fashioned  Methods  Survive  in  One  Canton. 

The  excellent  results  in  Switzerland  are  to  be  seen 
not  only  in  her  federal  affairs  but  also  in  the  affairs  of  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  her  cantons.  We  must  not, 
however,  overlook  Canton  Fribourg,  the  only  one  of  the 
twenty-two  Swiss  cantons  as  yet  unable  to  equip  herself 
with  the  Initiative  and  Referendum.  She  has  still  the  un- 
perfected or  “pure”  representative  system  characteristic 
of  our  American  states  and  cities  and  of  the  old  times 
in  the  rest  of  Switzerland.  This  brings  with  it,  there  as 
here,  boss-rule  and  all  that  boss-rule  implies.  The  legis- 
lative body  is  nominated  by  the  boss,  elected  by  the  people 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  19 


and  managed  by  the  boss.  Prominent  citizens  are  skillfully 
kept  in  line  by  a share  in  the  plunder  for  themselves,  or  for 
their  churches  or  philanthropies,  or  by  fear  of  loss  of  favor 
with  the  two  chief  banks,  both  creatures  of  the  boss.  There 
is  bribery,  extravagance,  subordination  of  the  general  in- 
terest to  private  business,  the  heaviest  per  capita  cantonal 
debt  in  Switzerland,  and  the  public  apathy  which  naturally 
follows  wide-spread  hopelessness.  The  agitation  for  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  is  still  kept  up  by  Fribourg 
patriots  as  their  only  hope,  but  all  orderly  means  of  success 
are  in  the  control  of  the  boss  who,  of  course,  fights  them 
and  will  fight  them  for  his  political  life.* 

Initiative  and  Referendum  Most  Developed  in  Important 

Centers. 

As  a contrast  to  Fribourg,  it  should  be  observed  that 
the  chief  cantons  of  Switzerland,  Berne  and  Zurich,  the 
former  a farming,  the  latter  a manufacturing  canton,  both 
far  in  the  lead  of  their  neighbors  in  population  and  im- 
portance, are  among  the  cantons  having  the  Initiative 
and  Referendum  in  their  most  radical  and  readily  work- 
able form.  Zurich  is  clearly  the  most  advanced  of  the 
cantons  in  this  respect,  and  Berne  is  surpassed,  and  at  that 
only  slightly,  by  few  besides  Zurich. 

In  short,  where  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  are 
most  readily  set  in  motion,  there  have  developed  clean 
government  and  leadership  in  civic  and  industrial  growth. 
In  the  only  canton  where  there  is  neither  the  Initiative 
and  Referendum  nor  pure  democracy,  there  is  misrule  and 
political  apathy  of  the  familiar  American  type. 


* This  bit  of  evidence  from  Fribourg  is  drawn  from  an  article  en- 
titled “The  Only  Political  Boss  in  Switzerland5’  by  George  Judson 
King,  Secretary  of  the  Ohio  Direct  Legislation  League,  in  the  Twen- 
tieth Century  Magazine  for  July,  1910.  The  article  is  based  on  recent 
personal  observations  in  Canton  Fribourg. 


20  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Switzerland  an  Adequate  Precedent  for  American  States 
and  Cities. 

The  Swiss  success  under  perfected  representative  gov- 
ernment may  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  repeated  in  this 
country,  for  the  strength  of  the  system  lies  in  giving  com- 
mon human  nature  a fair  chance  to  do  itself  justice. 
Human  nature  in  Switzerland  is  very  much  like  that  else- 
where. That  it  is  like  that  in  this  country  is  to  be  seen 
from  the  fact  that  representative  government  without 
direct  popular  control  results  in  demoralization  and  bad 
government  there  just  as  it  does  here,  and  in  just  the  same 
way  there  as  it  does  here. 

It  is  sometimes  suggested,  however,  that  little  Switzer- 
land, good  as  her  results  are  conceded  to  be,  is  not  an  ade- 
quate precedent  for  an  immense  nation  like  the  United 
States.  But  a small  nation  may  exemplify  a principle 
essential  to  the  success  of  a large  nation.  An  ocean  liner 
must  obey  the  laws  of  steam-engineering  as  well  as  a tug- 
boat. A sound  fundamental  principle  holds  regardless  of  the 
scale  of  the  enterprise.  That  a self-governing  people  must 
have  effective  control  over  the  laws  under  which  they  live 
would  seem  to  be  a principle  of  this  kind.  Details  may 
require  adjustment,  but  the  principle  will  hold.  But  all  that 
aside,  the  important  comparison  is  not  so  much  with  our 
nation  as  with  our  cities  and  states.  Switzerland,  unhomo- 
geneous  in  population,  pre-eminently  a manufacturing  nation, 
larger  than  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut 
combined,  with  a population  slightly  larger  than  that  of 
Massachusetts  is  plainly  an  excellent  precedent  for  the 
adoption  of  Direct  Legislation  by  individual  American  cities 
and  States. 

Moreover  there  may  never  be  need  for  a federal  Ini- 
tiative and  Referendum  system  for  this  country.  With 
the  rings  once  permanently  ousted  from  our  cities  and 
states,  the  federal  government  should  automatically  .run 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


21 


clear.  For  the  rings  that  do  the  plundering  at  Washington 
could  manifestly  not  long  survive  without  their  intrench- 
ments  in  the  cities  and  states.  At  any  rate,  it  is  obviously 
correct  tactics  now  to  go  right  ahead  for  the  Initiative 
and  Referendum  in  states  and  cities.  Our  only  disappoint- 
ments with  it,  judging  by  experience  elsewhere,  are  likely 
to  arise  from  excessive  restrictions  which  the  legislatures 
may  impose  upon  it. 

New  England  States  Especially  Fitted  for  Direct  Legislation. 

New  England,  the  home  of  the  town  meeting,  enjoying 
the  inspiration  of  the  Massachusetts  and  other  New  England 
States  Constitutions,  with  Maine  already  in  the  Direct 
Legislation  ranks,  may  be  expected  to  take  especially 
kindly  to  this  new  and  long  step  toward  the  realization 
of  her  ancient  ideals. 

The  real  questions  for  us  in  New  England  to  answer 
are: 

1.  Are  we  now  as  fit  for  this  forward  step  as  the  Swiss 
were  when  they  were  putting  the  system  in  operation  thirty 
to  fifty  years  ago f 

2.  Is  not  even  a complicated  law,  properly  explained  and 
vouched  for,  as  suitable  a thing  for  a popular  vote  as  a choice 
between  complicated  candidates  whose’  actions  no  one  can 
foresee? 

3.  Is  not  an  occasional  vote  on  an  ordinary  law  a natural 
and  reasonable  addition  to  our  time-honored  system  of 
popular  votes  on  State  constitutions  and  their  amendments? 

4.  Is  it  not  worth  while  to  disentangle  measures  from 
men  and  submit  to  popular  vote  definite  and  distinct  propo- 
sitions instead  of  mixtures  of  candidates,  parties  and  plat- 
forms? 


22 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Encouragement  from  Oregon. 

To  ask  these  questions  in  America  is  to  answer  them 
in  the  affirmative.  All  parts  of  the  country  are  coming 
to  see  the  point.  Oregon,  nearly  half  as  large  again  as  all 
New  England  combined,  is  setting  us  a most  encouraging 
example.  ' 

In  1902  she  adopted  Direct  Legislation.  She  was  then 
deep  in  political  corruption.  Thanks  to  the  Initiative,  and 
measures  secured  with  it  which  legislatures  had  refused  to 
pass,  she  has  made  great  progress  toward  better  govern- 
ment and  the  house-cleaning  is  going  right  on.* 

The  outcries  of  the  local  plunderers  show  that  they  feel 
their  power  slipping  away.  Their  intrigues  for  the 
destruction  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  show  that 
they  know  the  cause. 

What  the  Fathers  were  Trying  to  Do. 

We  shall  be  interested  to  see  how  Direct  Legislation  fits 
in  with  the  ideas  of  our  wonderfully  far-sighted  and  successful 
constitution  framers.  It  will  be  worth  while  to  quote  a 
few  passages  from  the  Constitution  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts — the  oldest  of  their  works — the  spirit  of 
which  is  no  stranger  in  other  parts  of  the  country.  Articles 
V,  VII,  and  VIII  of  that  honored  document  will  give  the 
ideas  of  the  fathers  on  the  relation  of  the  people  to  their 
representatives : 

Article  V.  All  power  residing  originally  in  the  people,  and  being 
derived  from  them,  the  several  magistrates  and  officers  of  government, 
vested  with  authority,  whether  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  are 
their  substitutes  and  agents,  and  are  at  all  times  accountable  to  them. 

* See  the  speech  of  Senator  Bourne  of  Oregon  in  the  U.  S.  Senate, 
May  5,  1910  (obtainable  from  the  Massachusetts  Direct  Legisla- 
tion League),  for  an  extended  description  of  this  remarkable  work. 
Senator  Bourne,  a Republican,  and  by  birth  a Massachusetts  man, 
and  his  colleague,  Senator  Chamberlain,  a Democrat,  born  in  Mis- 
sissippi, are  alike  active  advocates  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum, 
after  observing  its  eight  years  of  operation  in  their  home  state. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


23 


Art.  VII.  Government  is  instituted  for  the  common  good;  for  the 
protection,  safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the  people;  and  not 
for  the  profit,  honor,  or  private  interest  of  any  one  man,  family,  or 
olass  of  men:  Therefore  the  people  have  an  incontestable,  unalienable, 
and  indefeasible  right  to  institute  government;  and  to  reform,  alter 
or  totally  change  the  same,  when  their  protection,  safety,  prosperity, 
.and  happiness  require  it. 

Art.  VIII.  In  order  to  prevent  those  who  are  vested  with  authority 
from  becoming  oppressors,  the  people  have  a right,  at  such  periods 
and  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  establish  by  their  frame  of  govern- 
ment, to  cause  their  public  officers  to  return  to  private  life;  and  to 
fill  up  vacant  places  by  certain  and  regular  elections  and  appointments. 


Lack  of  Steam  and  Electricity  the  Obstacle  to  Direct  Legis- 
lation at  the  Outset. 

On  reading  these  sturdy  New  England  doctrines  one 
must  conclude  that  the  only  reason  why  the  fathers  did 
not  then  and  there  establish  Direct  Legislation  for  the 
State  and  for  cities  as  they  might  develop,  was  that  it 
was  at  that  time  physically  impossible.  Mechanical  in- 
vention had  not  advanced  far  enough  to  permit  it  even  if 
they  had  conceived  the  idea.  We  must  not  forget  that 
their  facilities  for  disseminating  information  and  gathering 
returns  were  little  superior  to  those  of  Julius  Caesar.  They 
knew  no  more  of  railways  than  Caesar  did,  such  highways 
as  they  had  were  not  so  good  as  Caesar’s.  But  they  reso- 
lutely did  all  that  was  practicable  under  the  mechanical 
conditions  of  their  time.  They  provided  an  obligatory 
referendum  on  the  adoption  and  amendment  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Commonwealth,  even  though  it  might  and  did 
take  weeks  to  put  the  matter  to  vote  and  get  the  returns. 
And  it  is  clear  that  nothing  was  farther  from  their  minds 
than  that  the  will  of  representatives  should  prevail  over 
the  will  of  the  people,  some  modern  officeholders  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. 


24 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Now  that  Direct  Legislation,  as  a working  institution 
on  a large  scale,  has  become  a possibility  through  the  intro- 
duction of  the  modern  means  of  spreading  news  and  ideas 
by  the  telegraph,  high-speed  printing  press,  and  the  railway, 
we  can  proceed  from  the  point  where  the  fathers  were 
forced  to  stop  and  can  vindicate  more  clearly  than  ever  the 
soundness  of  their  noble  idealism. 

An  Attractive  Outlook. 

In  closing  it  may  be  said  that  the  Initiative  and  Referen- 
dum appeal  particularly  to  progressive  Americans  in  wrhom 
still  lives  the  spirit  of  the  liberty-loving  men  who  founded 
this  nation.  Such  citizens  readily  comprehend  the  necessity 
of  controlling  the  important  results,  and  of  not  limiting 
themselves  to  toying  at  government  while  privilege  does 
the  governing.  They  take  great  satisfaction,  moreover, 
in  a remedial  measure  so  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  the 
old  ideals  and  institutions.  It  involves,  after  all,  only  a bit 
of  additional  machinery,  and  depends  for  its  success  only 
upon  our  fitness  for  self-government. 

Of  course  Direct  Legislation  is  only  a piece  of  mechanism. 
It  will  not  suffice  merely  to  set  it  up.  It  must  be  made  to 
work  promptly  and  with  vigor  when  required.  This  will 
take  real  citizens.  Oregon  shows  that  such  citizens  still 
exist — some  of  them  of  New  England  or  other  American 
stock,  some  of  them  born  in  old-wTorld  monarchies. 

The  success  in  Switzerland;  the  steady  progress  and 
gratifying  results  in  America;  the  strenuous  opposition  by 
favorites  or  managers  of  political  machines;  the  misrepre- 
sentations by  professional  lobbyists  and  conspicuous  office- 
holders, echoed  in  ex-parte  “editorials,”  all  indicate  that 
the  Initiative  and  Referendum  are  measures  justly  des- 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  25 


tined  to  receive  an  increasing  amount  of  public  attention 


and  regard. 

With  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  force,  we  shall 
be  equipped  as  never  before  to  resist  enemies  from  within; 
enemies  far  more  dangerous  to  our  freedom  than  any  foreign 
foe. 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum  may  well  be  the  means 
of  instituting  on  a permanent  basis  the  responsible  kind  of 
representative  government  which  our  fathers  lived  and  died 
to  secure. 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum  may  well  prove  to  be 
the  salvation  of  the  momentous  experiment  led  by  Jefferson. 
Hancock,  Franklin,  the  Adamses  and  Washington. 


t 


« 


f 


26 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


APPENDIX  I. 


Dangerous  Jokers.* 

Now  that  the  demand  for  the  Initiative 
and  Referendum  is  becoming  irresistible, 
the  public  must  be  on  guard  against  the 
subtle  dangers  peculiar  to  this  stage,  of 
the  movement.  The  opposition  may 
now  seem  to  yield  while  actually  con- 
niving at  the  enactment  of  an  unworkable 
sham,  which  may  be  worse  than  useless, — 
for  popular  disappointment  in  the  work- 
ing of  mere  half-way  measures,  adopted  in 
the  name  of  reform,  is  a most  potent 
ally  of  civic  apathy  and  reaction. 

A favorite  way  of  producing  a sham 
measure  is  by  inserting  or  manipulating  a 
few  words  so  as  to  produce  one  of  the  six 
jokers  described  below.  The  sugar  coat 
within  which  the  public  is  induced  to 
swallow  them  is  smooth  talk  about  “safe- 
guarding” the  Initiative  and  Referendum 
or  “protecting”  it  from  “abuse.”  The 
uniform  result  is  violation  of  the  people’s 
right  to  effective  supremacy  in  legisla- 
tion, and  a new  lease  of  life  for  invisible 
government. 

Joker  No.  1.  Restricting  the  Initiative 
to  statute  laws,  and  thus  withholding  from 
the  voters  power  to  adopt  amendments  to  the 
state  constitution  over  the  head  of  the  legis- 
lature. 

Obviously,  since  the  constitution  is 
the  fundamental  law,  the  Constitutional 
Initiative  is  the  vitally  essential  feature 
of  Direct  Legislation.  Some  of  the  most 
prolific  sources  of  social  unrest  are  consti- 

*  These  jokers  were  first  categorically  exposed 
in  Equity  of  January,  1913,  from  which  Appen- 
dix I is  to  some  extent  taken.  Additional  on  these 
jokers  can  be  obtained  from  the  National  Popular 
Government  League,  Judson  King,  Secretary,  913 
Munsey  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C.  Mr.  King’s 
help  in  the  preparation  of  Appendix  I is  gratefully 
acknowledged. 


tutional  provisions  whose  repeal  legisla- 
tures will  not  permit.  Fortunately,  only 
six  of  the  states  rated  as  Initiative-and- 
Referendum  states  are  without  the  Con- 
stitutional Initiative,  viz.-  South  Da- 
kota, Utah,  Montana,  Maine,  Washing- 
ton and  Idaho. 

Joker  No.  2.  The  requirement  of  an 
impossible  or  too  difficult  majority  for  en- 
actment or  rejection  of  a measure  by  the 
people. 

This  joker  takes  the  form  of  an  inno- 
cent looking  stipulation  that  the  majority 
required  for  enactment  of  an  initiative 
measure  or  rejection  of  a referendum 
measure  shall  be  a majority  “of  all  the 
votes  cast  at  the  election ,”  or  “of  the  total 
registered  vote.”  Either  is  practically 
fatal  to  the  usefulness  of  the  measure. 
In  practice  this  joker  is  tantamount  to- 
requiring  a two-thirds  to  even  a five- 
sixths  or  even  heavier  majority  of  the 
voters  who  vote  to  overrule  the  legislature. 

Stripped  of  all  pretense,  Joker  No.  2 
is  a requirement  that  those  nominal 
voters  who  are  too  ignorant  or  indifferent 
to  vote  one  way  or  the  other  on  a measure 
shall  always  be  counted  as  having  voted 
against  an  Initiative  measure  and  for  a 
Referendum  measure,  i.e.,  shall  be  counted 
so  as  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the 
legislature  and  override  a majority  of  the 
thinking,  voting  portion  of  the  electorate. 

Joker  No.  2 should  meet  particularly 
short  shrift  in  Massachusetts  where  for 
a century  and  a third  constitutional 
amendments  have  always  been  accepted 
or  rejected  by  the  majority  of  those 
voting  on  each.  Massachusetts  has  never 
used  the  combined  Don’t  Knows  and 
Don’t  Cares  as  a ready-made  avalanche 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


27 


f with  which  to  overwhelm  the  majority  of 
voters  who  vote.  We  may  believe  she 
never  will. 

This  joker  met  a deserved  and  pictur- 
esque fate  in  1912,  where  the  reactionaries 
tried  to  slip  it  into  the  Oregon  system. 
Two  of  the  thirty-seven  measures  on  the 
ballot  were  for  this  purpose:  one  sub- 
mitted by  the  legislature,  one  by  Initiative 
petition — fathered  by  a “Majority  (!)  Rule 
League.”  The  scorn  for  both  measures 
was  such,  in  that  experienced  community, 
that  the  negative  vote  in  their  two-to- 
one  rejection  actually  did  roll  up  to  the 
very  unusual  figure  of  more  than  the  very 
majority  which  the  joker  itself  was  in- 
tended to  establish. 

Only  one  of  the  forty-one  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts 
now  in  force  got  an  affirmative  vote  as 
1 great  as  a majority  of  the  votes  cast  in 
the  same  election  for  governor.  That 
was  one  adopted  in  1833  by  a vote  of 
32,354  to  3,272,  while  the  total  vote  for 
governor  was  62,474.  Under  Joker  No. 
2,  if  there  had  been  1,200  fewer  “yes” 
votes  the  amendment  would  have  been 
lost,  though  favored  by  nearly  ten  to 
one  vote  of  those  who  took  the  trouble  to 
vote  on  the  subject. 

The  proper,  fair  and  usual  requirement 
is  that  any  measure  shall  be  decided  by 
a majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon. 

Joker  No.  3.  The  requirement  of  an 
unreasonably  large  number  of  signers  or 
other  burdensome  restrictions  upon  peti- 
tions. 

Clearly  if  the  labor  of  filing  a petition 
is  too  great  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 
is  useless.  In  Massachusetts  where,  for 
generations,  ten  voters  have  had  the 
power  to  work  the  Initiative  in  town 
affairs  by  putting  in  the  town  warrant  a 
measure  which  can  be  settled  only  by 


vote  of  the  whole  town,  the  requirement 
of  50,000  signers  and  25,000  signers  for 
state  petitions  of  similar  purport  seems 
quite  high  enough. 

Besides  calling  for  too  many  signers, 
there  may  be  a burdensome  and  illogical 
stipulation  that  the  signers  shall  come  in 
certain  arbitrary  proportions  from  various 
parts  of  the  state.  This  is  an  absurd 
infraction  of  equal  rights — a voter  is  a 
voter  regardless  of  where  in  the  state 
he  lives  and  none  should  be  arbitrarily 
discriminated  against  because  he  lives  in 
one  county  or  another.  So  far  as  this 
joker  arises  from  an  honest  desire  to  keep 
local  matters  off  the  state  ballot,  there 
should  be  the  same  desire  to  keep  them 
out  of  the  state  legislature — which  can 
be  done  by  suitable  home  rule  provisions. 

Other  pettier  but  equally  dangerous 
restrictions  are  likely  to  appear,  but  they 
should  not  deceive  any  who  really  intend 
that  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  shall 
work. 

Joker  No.  4.  Framing  the  “ emergency 
clause ” so  that  the  legislature  can  too  readily 
annul  the  Referendum. 

Exemption  of  measures  from  the  Ref- 
erendum is  unquestionably  desirable  in 
occasional  emergencies,  but  great  care 
must  be  taken  that  none  but  bona  fide 
emergencies  are  called  such.  A two- 
thirds  yea  and  nay  vote  by  the  members 
of  each  house  upon  a separate  section, 
declaring  the  emergency  to  exist  and 
setting  forth  the  reasons  for  emergency 
action,  should  be  required  for  establishing 
an  “emergency.”  The  granting  of  fran- 
chises as  “emergency  measures”  should  be 
specifically  prohibited. 

An  inadequately  guarded  emergency 
clause  can  be  a large  hole  through  the 
Referendum. 


28 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Joker  No.  5.  Putting  an  arbitrary  limit 
on  the  number  of  measures  which  can  be 
submitted  to  the  people  at  any  one  election. 

This  is  an  old  scheme  which  has  worked 
great  hardships.  Of  course  it  is  an 
invitation  to  fill  up  the  ballot  promptly 
with  trivial  proposals,  and  thus  keep 
measures  of  importance  waiting  indefi- 
nitely. Subservient  legislatures,  particu- 
larly in  Illinois,  have  made  much  of  such 
chances. 

Joker  No.  6.  Failing  to  provide  an 
adequate  and  efficient  means  of  informing 
voters  regarding  the  measures  submitted  to 
them.  The  only  safety  for  predatory  in- 
terests is  to  keep  the  voters  in  ignorance 
or  misinformed.  The  only  safety  for  the 


state  is  the  opposite.  Newspapers  of 
course  do  not  at  all  meet  the  need.  A 
state  publicity  pamphlet  combining  the 
best  features  of  the  Oregon  and  Oklahoma 
pamphlets  must  be  insisted  on.  The 
ack  of  such  a thing  is  a weak  point  in  the 
traditional  Massachusetts  practice  in 
referenda  on  constitutional  amendments. 
This  and  their  frequently  uninteresting 
character  will  doubtless  explain  the  slight 
attention  they  sometimes  get  from  the 
voters. 

Other  methods  of  producing  an  honest- 
looking  sham  measure  can  doubtless  be 
devised,  notably  by  ambiguous  or  in- 
complete wording,  but  it  is  believed  that 
the  foregoing  indicates  the  most  subtle 
and  serious  dangers  thus  far  brought  to 
light. 


APPENDIX  II 


The  precise  terms  of  the  enactment 
which  may  be  considered  best  suited  to 
establish  the  initiative  and  referendum 
in  Massachusetts,  can  be  seen  in  the 
proposed  amendment  given  below  in 
full.  This  bill  is  substantially  the  one 
agreed  upon  early  in  1913  by  Massachu- 
setts advocates  of  Direct  Legislation 
irrespective  of  party,  and  as  such  intro- 
duced in  the  legislature  of  that  year  as  a 
substitute  for  House  Bill  1239.  This  bill, 
framed  particularly  to  fit  Massachusetts 
methods  and  traditions,  may  properly 
be  called  the  Massachusetts  Plan.  It  is 
intended  to  secure  deliberate  but  effective 
popular  control  in  legislation,  with  a 
minimum  of  disturbance  of  inherited 
methods,  a minimum  cumbering  of  the 
ballot,  and  a maximum  of  co-operation 
by  the  legislature  in  the  discussion  and 
perfection  of  initiative  measures.  Its 


provision  for  friendly  amendments  of  such 
measures  by  the  legislature  is  the  most 
important  and  significant  new  feature 
in  the  Massachusetts  Plan. 

ARTICLE  OF  AMENDMENT. 

The  Legislative  authority  of  the  Commonwealth 
is  vested  in  the  general  court;  but  the  people 
reserve  to  themselves  the  Initiative  which  is  the 
power  to  propose  laws,  resolves  and  amendments 
to  the  constitution,  and  to  enact,  adopt,  or  reject 
the  same  at  the  polls  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  general  court  or  of  the  governor;  and  the 
people  also  reserve  to  themselves  the  referendum 
which  is  the  power  at  their  own  option  to  approve 
or  reject  at  the  polls  any  law  or  resolve  of  the  gen  - 
eral  court  or  any  part  or  parts  thereof. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  INITIATIVE. 

If  an  Initiative  petition  for  an  amendment  or 
amendments  to  the  constitution  is  introduced  into 
the  general  court,  signed  by  at  least  fifty  thousand 
qualified  voters  of  the  commonwealth,  and  the 
general  court  into  which  it  is  introduced  shall  fail 
to  agree  to  such  amendment  or  amendments  as 
provided  in  the  ninth  article  of  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  either  in  the  original  form  set 
forth  in  such  initiative  petition  or  in  such  amended 
form  as  shall  be  approved,  before  final  action 
thereon  in  either  branch  of  the  general  court,  by 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


29 


the  proposers  hereinafter  provided  for,  then  such 
amendment  or  amendments  in  such  original  form, 
or,  if  amendments  have  been  offered  in  either  branch 
of  the  general  court  and  approved  by  such  pro- 
posers, then  in  a form  so  amended,  shall  be  deemed 
referred  to  the  general  court  then  next  to  be  chosen 
and  shall  have  the  same  standing  therein  as  if 
once  agreed  to;  and  if  the  general  court  next  chosen' 
as  aforesaid  shall  not  agree  to  such  amendment  or 
amendments  as  provided  in  the  ninth  article  as 
aforesaid,  then  such  proposed  amendment  or 
amendments  shall  nevertheless  be  submitted  to 
the  people  in  the  same  manner  as  if  agreed  to  by 
two  successive  general  courts;  and  if  such  amend- 
ment or  amendments  shall  be  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  qualified  voters  voting  thereon, 
such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become 
part  of  the  constitution  of  the  commonwealth. 

LESIGLATIVE  INITIATIVE. 

If  an  Initiative  petition  for  a bill  or  resolve  is 
introduced  into  the  general  court,  signed  by  at 
least  twenty-five  thousand  qualified  voters  of  the 
commonwealth,  and  the  general  court  into  which 
it  is  introduced  shall  fail  to  enact  such  bill  or  to 
pass  such  resolve  either  in  its  original  form  as  set 
forth  in  said  initiative  petition  or  in  such  amended 
form  as  shall  be  approved,  before  final  action 
thereon  in  either  branch  of  the  general  court, 
by  the  proposers  hereinafter  provided  for,  then 
such  bill  or  resolve  in  such  original  form  or,  if 
amendments  have  been  offered  in  either  branch  of 
the  general  court  and  approved  by  such  proposers, 
then  in  a form  so  amended,  shall  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  at  the  next  ensuing  state  election;  and 
if  such  bill  or  resolve  shall  be  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  the  qualified  voters  voting  thereon,  it  shall, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  contitution,  be- 
come law  and  shall  take  effect  in  thirty  days  after 
such  state  election  or  at  such  time  thereafter  as 
may  be  provided  in  such  bill  or  resolve. 

INITIATIVE  MEASURES,  HOW  INTRO- 
DUCED.—PROPOSERS. 

An  Initiative  petition  shall  set  forth  the  full 
text  of  the  proposed  constitutional  amendment, 
bill  or  resolve  which  is  the  subject  of  the  petition. 
Such  petition  shall  first  be  signed  by  seven  quali- 
fied voters  of  the  commonwealth  who  shall  consti- 
tute the  proposers  of  such  proposed  constitutional 
amendment,  bill  or  resolve.  Such  petition  shall 
then  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  the  common- 
wealth who  shall  provide  blanks  at  the  expense  of 
the  proposers  for  the  use  of  subsequent  signers. 
He  shall  print  at  the  top  of  each  of  such  blanks  a 
clear  and  simple  description  of  the  proposed  con- 
stitutional amendment,  bill  or  resolve,  which  is 
the  subject  of  the  petition,  and  the  names  of  the 
roposers  thereof.  The  completed  petition  shall 
e filed  with  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth, 
and,  upon  the  assembling  of  the  next  general  court, 
he  shall  transmit  the  petition  to  the  clerk  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  the  proposed  con- 
stitutional amendment,  bill  or  resolve  which  is  the 
subject  of  such  petition  shall  then  be  deemed  to  be 
introduced  into  that  general  court  and  pending  in 
the  House  of  Representatives;  provided  that  such 
petition  may  be  received  by  the  general  court  at  any 
time. 

The  proposers  shall  have  power,  in  case  of  a 
vacancy  caused  by  the  death,  resignation  or  dis- 


ability of  any  of  their  number,  by  unanimous 
vote  of  those  remaining,  to  fill  such  vacancy  from 
among  the  petitioners  and  shall  have  power  by 
unanimous  vote  to  approve  amendments  offered  in 
either  branch  of  the  general  court,  to  the  proposed 
constitutional  amendment,  bill  or  resolve  which 
is  the  subject  of  the  petition.  Certified  copies  of 
each  vote  of  the  proposers,  whereby  they  fill 
vacancies  in  their  number  or  approve  amend- 
ments, shall  forthwith  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of 
the  Senate  and  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, such  copies  shall  be  attested  by  the 
signatures  of  all  the  proposers. 

NINETY  DAYS  ABEYANCE  ON  LAWS  NOT 
EMERGENCY  MEASURES. 

No  act  or  resolve  passed  by  the  general  court 
shall  take  effect  earlier  than  ninety  days  after  the 
date  of  its  approval  by  the  governor  or  its  becom- 
ing law  without  his  approval,  excepting  acts  or 
resolves  providing  for  previously  authorized  ex- 
penditures, and  excepting  also  acts  or  resolves 
declared  to  be  emergency  measures. 

EMERGENCY  MEASURE  DEFINED. 

An  act  or  resolve  declared  to  be  an  emergency 
measure  shall  contain  a preamble  setting  forth 
briefly  the  facts  constituting  the  alleged  emergency 
and  shall  contain  the  statement  that  such  act  or 
resolve  is  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation 
of  the  public  peace,  health  or  safety.  A separate 
vote  shall  be  taken  on  the  preamble  of  such  an  act 
or  resolve  by  a call  of  the  yeas  and  nays  and  unless 
the  preamble  is  adopted  by  a two-thirds  vote  of 
the  total  membership  of  the  Senate  and  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  total  membership  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  the  act  or  resolve  shall  not 
be  an  emergency  measure.  No  grant  of  any  fran- 
chise or  amendment,  renewal  or  extension  thereof 
shall  be  declared  to  be  an  emergency  measure. 

REFERENDUM. 

In  case  of  any  act  or  resolve  passed  by  the  gen- 
eral court,  which  is  not  an  emergency  measure  or 
appropriation  act  or  resolve,  as  above  provided, 
if,  within  ninety  days  after  such  act  or  resolve  is 
approved  by  the  governor  or  becomes  a law  with- 
out his  approval,  a petition  is  filed  in  the  office  of 
the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth  signed  by  at 
least  twenty-five  thousand  qualified  voters  of  the 
commonwealth,  protesting  against  such  act  or 
resolve  or  any  part  or  parts  thereof,  and  asking  for 
a referendum  thereon,  then  such  act  or  resolve 
or  part  or  parts  thereof  shall  thereupon  be  further 
suspended  and  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people 
at  the  next  ensuing  state  election,  provided  the 
petition  is  filed  at  least  sixty  days  prior  to  the  date 
for  holding  such  state  election,  otherwise  such  act 
or  resolve  or  part  or  parts  thereof  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  people  at  the  next  following  state  election; 
and  if  a majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon  is  in 
the  affirmative  such  act  or  resolve  or  part  or  parts 
thereof  shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  con- 
stitution, take  effect  at  the  expiration  of  thirty 
days  after  such  election  or  at  such  time  thereafter 
as  may  be  provided  in  such  act  or  resolve;  but 
if  such  majority  is  in  the  negative,  such  act  or 
resolve  or  part  or  parts  thereof  shall  be  null  and 
void. 


30 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


If,  in  case  of  an  emergency  measure,  after  it 
becomes  a law,  a petition  for  a referendum  upon 
such  measure  or  any  part  or  parts  thereof  is  filed 
in  like  manner,  such  measure  or  part  or  parts  thereof 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  next  ensuing 
state  election;  and,  if  not  approved  by  a majority 
of  the  votes  cast  thereon,  such  act  or  resolve  or 
part  or  parts  thereof,  together  with  all  rights  and 
privileges  thereby  conferred,  shall,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  thirty  days  after  such  election,  become  null 
and  void. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS. 

The  veto  power  of  the  governor  shall  not  extend 
to  measures  approved  by  the  people. 

Measures  approved  by  the  people  at  the  same 
time  and  in  conflict  in  one  or  more  of  their  pro- 
visions shall  all  take  effect  as  to  provisions  not  in 
conflict.  In  each  case  of  conflicting  provisions 
in  such  measures  that  one  of  the  provisions  in 
conflict  shall  take  effect  which  was  contained  in 
that  one  of  such  measures  which  received  the  great- 
est number  of  affirmative  votes,  and  all  others 
of  such  conflicting  provisions  shall  become  void. 

The  enacting  style  of  all  acts  or  resolves  sub- 
mitted upon  initiative  petition  and  approved  by 
the  people  shall  be — “Be  it  enacted”  (or  “resolved” 
as  the  case  may  be)  “by  the  people  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts  and  by  the  authority  of 
the  same”;  and  this  enacting  style  shall  be  deemed 
to  be  part  of  such  act  or  resolve  as  approved.  Acts 
or  resolves  submitted  to  the  people  upon  referendum 
and  approved  by  them  shall  have  such  approval 
recorded,  with  date  thereof,  upon  the  engrossed 
copy  of  the  act  or  resolve  and  upon  every  copy 
thereof  printed  by  public  authority. 

The  secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  cause 
to  be  printed  and  distributed  to  each  voter  a sample 
ballot  together  with  the  full  text  of  every  measure 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people  and  the  general 
court  shall  provide  for  public  dissemination  of 
information  and  arguments  thereon. 

The  general  court  shall  provide  by  law  for  the 
certification  of  signatures  to  petitions  referred  to 
in  this  article. 

Each  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution 
and  each  bill,  act  or  resolve  submitted  to  the  people 
shall  be  described  on  the  ballots  clearly  and  simply 
by  a description  to  be  determined  by  the  secretary 
of  the  commonwealth  subject  to  review  by  a court 
of  equity,  and  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth 
shall  cause  each  question  to  be  printed  on  the  bal- 
lot in  accordance  with  the  following  provisions. 

In  the  case  of  a proposed  amendment  to  the 
constitution:  Shall  the  proposed  amendment  to 
the  constitution  (here  insert  description)  be  ap- 
proved and  ratified?  Yes 

No 

In  the  case  of  a bill  or  resolve  submitted  upon 
initiative  petition;  Shall  the  proposed  bill  (or 
resolve)  (as  the  case  may  be)  (here  insert  descrip- 
tion) become  law?  Yes 

No 


In  the  case  of  an  act  or  resolve  submitted  upon 
referendum:  Shall  an  act  (or  resolve)  (as  the  case 
may  be)  (here  insert  description)  take  effect? 

Yes 

No 

In  the  case  of  an  emergency  measure  submitted 
upon  referendum:  Shall  an  act  (or  resolve)  (as 
the  case  may  be)  (here  insert  description)  be 
approved?  Yes 

No 

The  provisions  of  this  amendment  shall  be  self- 
enforcing.  In  order  to  carry  the  same  into  im- 
mediate effect,  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth 
and  all  other  officers  shall  be  governed  by  the 
general  laws  of  the  commonwealth,  so  far  as  ap- 
plicable and  not  inconsistent  herewith. 

The  votes  upon  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution or  upon  a bill,  act  or  resolve  submitted  to 
the  people  as  herein  required,  shall  be  taken,  sorted, 
counted,  declared,  returned,  opened  and  examined 
in  the  same  manner  as  provided  by  law  with 
reference  to  votes  for  state  officers  so  far  as  such 
provisions  may  be  applicable  or  as  may  be  pro- 
vided by  law  in  a manner  not  inconsistent  here- 
with. 

All  provisions  of  the  existing  constitution  in- 
consistent herewith  are  hereby  annulled. 

It  is  likely  that  the  1914  bill  will  be  on 
the  same  lines.* 


*In  considering  this  bill,  citizens  of  other  states  should  bear  in  mind  that  Massachusetts  has  regular 
annual  elections  and  annual  sessions  of  the  legislature  (locally  called  the  “general  court”).  Some  por- 
tions of  this  bill  are  clearly  not  suited  to  states  with  less  frequent  elections  and  sessions. 


V 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  31 


For  readers  wishing  a fuller  discussion  of  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  it  may  be  proper  to  refer  to  some  of  the 
most  recent  larger  works  upon  the  subject: 

The  Initiative , Referendum  and  Recall.  Edited  by  Wil- 
liam Bennett  Munro.  Appleton , 1912.  356  pp. 

A collection  of  fifteen  essays  on  different  sides  of  the  question  by 
as  many  different  authors,  including  one  by  the  editor. 

Government  by  All  the  People,  or  the  Initiative,  Referen- 
dum and  the  Recall  as  Instruments  of  Democracy.  By  Delos 
F.  Wilcox,  Ph.D.  Macmillan,  1912.  324  pp. 

The  most  recent  monograph  on  the  subject.  Arguments  pro  and 
con  are  fully  and  readably  considered.  The  verdict  is  favorable  to  the 
measures.  The  full  text  of  the  Ohio  initiative  and  referendum  amend- 
ment, adopted  Sept.  3,  1912,  is  given. 

Documents  on  the  State-wide  Initiative,  Referendum  and 
Recall.  By  Charles  A.  Beard  and  Birl  E.  Schultz.  Macmil- 
lan, 1912.  394  pp. 

A collection  of  all  initiative  and  referendum  constitutional  amend- 
ments, in  force  and  pending,  significant  statutes  for  carrying  them  into 
effect,  six  important  judicial  decisions,  material  relating  to  the  state- 
wide recall,  and  an  analytical  introduction  by  Professor  Beard  (of 
Columbia  University). 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum. — Arguments  pro  and 
con  by  a Special  Committee  of  the  National  Economic 
League,  consisting  of  Robert  L.  Owen,  William  Allen  White, 
Frederic  C.  Howe  and  Lewis  J.  Johnson,  favoring;  and 
George  Sutherland,  Emmet  O'Neal,  Frederick  P.  Fish  and 
Charles  F.  A.  Currier,  opposing.  National  Economic 
League,  6 Beacon  St.,  Boston. 


For  a record  of  the  progress  of  the  movement,  with 
able  editorial  comment,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Equity,  a 
quarterly  devoted  wholly  to  the  initiative  and  referendum 
and  kindred  topics.  It  is  published  by  Dr.  C.  F.  Taylor, 
1520  Chestnut  St.,  Philadelphia,  at  fifty  cents  per  year. 

The  National  Popular  Government  League  (Judson 
King,  Secretary,  913  Munsey  Building,  Washington,  D.  C.) 
is  the  national  organization  for  furthering  the  Initiative  and 
Referendum. 


2 061 


884679 


Edwin  L.  Slocomb 


